In article <1C5BB641B23 at bio.tamu.edu>, jfrugoli at bio.tamu.edu wrote:
> In reply to Pearse:
> >Can you give a specific example of this. I have yet to come across
> >funding
> >guidelines that suggest that inclusion of women in a study group was
> >not
> >permitted.
> >
>>> It's my understanding that until very recently, U.S. Federal guidelines
> PROHIBITED women from being included in clinical studies (they might get
> pregnant, they have hormonal fluctuations, etc, etc) and that therefore
> studies including women were not fundable. Please correct me if I'm
> wrong-I didn't think this was even questionable.
I think you misunderstood me here. I was the one asking for clarification.
I had not come across funding guidleines in which researchers were
prohibited from being included. I had read many studies in which women
were included. Therefore, I found this odd. I was not suggesting that it
didn't happen, merely asking where and when. I do find it
incomprehensible. I can understand wanting to limit confounding variable
in research in lab animals (much of which is of questionable value to
human health) but it makes no sense to do this in clinical studies. It is
bad science.
> I think this has
> already been addressed, but I wanted to be sure we are all talking about
> the same thing-we're not talking about clinical trials on mice-we're
> talking about the Framingham Heart Study, and other famous long term
> trials involving people (male only) on which most of modern
> reccomendations on diet, heart disease, etc are based and which until a
> very few years ago, completely excluded women, even though all
> reccommendations were extrapolated to women.
What if it had been done the other way round (an all female study with
results extrapolated to men)? Would that make a difference? I guess the
question I was trying to get answered here is what is the basis for
"female" science and what makes it inherently different from "male"
science. Most of the women scientists I have met approach science the same
way most of the men do. Their interests and priorities as to what ought to
be studied may be different (although the differences may be greater in
the clinical sciences or social science than in basic research which is
where most of my experience has been), but the way in which women think
about and conduct science is not demonstrably different in my experience.
Is this because there is no male and female science, or is it because most
female scientists have been trained in a male dominated system, and that
there is a femal way to do science but it has not had the time or the
opportunity to evolve given the present system? This is the question that
I am trying to get an opinion on from the people in this group. I have not
observed major differences in the way women scientists think about science
(basic premises, fundamental logic, inductive and deductive reasoning),
and the arguments I have read suggesting that these differences exist
haven't convinced me (most of them have been written by non-scientists).
My question is; do you believe that women have a fundamentally different
way of approaching science than men, and if so can you define the
differences?
Pearse
--
Pearse Ward
Dep't Veterinary Microbiology
Western College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, SK
http://www.usask.ca/~wardp
---------- The road to hell is paved with good intentions ----------
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
mQCPAzBPmj0AAAEEAMbxX9KFHhL4UIme5NDllWcaQpUZee6BIf5blibHqoAgISFU
nrhsJS+8ZR5Km8yB4aCjkAyVGBt/dhVhENdwXOqKic4rMMgN9BE8aFyXWBSDZEVJ
CzA8LSL1W6Y+IXInGYaDcWumqGKhqvE3d7HnUEBHxpHeKar2NQuQHVoD+viBABEB
AAG0IlBlYXJzZSBXYXJkIDx3YXJkcEBoZXJhbGQudXNhc2suY2E=
=XafS
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
